A graph of global atmospheric temperatures from 1979 to 2009 shows mixed results, with a marked rise between 2002 and 2007, but a significant dip in 2008. (Source: UAH/Dr. Roy Spencer)

IPCC graphs from 2007 point to warming increasing at a rate of between 0.2 and 0.3 degrees celsius every two decades. However, 2008 saw temperatures dip back to almost the three decade average, bringing these projections into question. (Source: IPCC)

Another graph illustrates the broad disparity between IPCC estimates and estimates based on observation. (Source: Roy Spencer, Ph.D)

No matter how you look at it, though, the pace of warming currently is not keeping up with the increases in emissions -- and is not following the IPCC's models. Emissions increased 2 percent in 2008, reaching new highs, while temperatures fell back to lower levels. (Source: CSIRO)

New evidence suggests that the correlation between atmospheric carbon and warming may not be as clear as previously believed

Global warming is an extremely
sensitive topic. Some ardently believe that man is pushing
our planet towards global ruin, while others believe that proponents
of anthropogenic warming theory are pushing the global economy
towards financial ruin.
Surprisingly, though, the evidence is not as black or white as either
group would like you to believe.

A recent study looking at
atmospheric carbon when combined with a recent summary of global
atmospheric temperatures over the past 30 years sharply illustrates
this uncertainty.

Looking first at the temperature map,
which was compiled by the University
of Alabama in Huntsville using satellite data of atmospheric
temperatures over the last three decades, several interesting things
pop out. First, one quickly notices the relative highs that
were reached between 2002 and 2007, which believers in the theory of
anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (AGW) tend to fixate on.
And likewise it's equally easy to notice the sharp drop and relative
lows experienced
in 2008, something that AGW disbelievers elect to focus on.

With
the new year, the temperature is on the rise again, but as can be
seen in the graph it's unclear whether this increase will truly mark
a warming rise, or simply another cyclic variation. There have
been approximately 7 cyclic variations over the past three decades,
highlighted by the peaks.

Meanwhile, turning to a new
study in Nature Geoscience, in 2008 global carbon levels
soared 2 percent to record highs of 1.3 tons of carbon per capita per
year. The paper cites increased use of coal in developing
nations as the biggest factor, with emissions from oil and
deforestation as minor factors.

One of the paper’s lead
authors, CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach comments, "The current growth
in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is closely linked to
growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). CO2
emissions from fossil fuel combustion are estimated to have increased
41 per cent above 1990 levels with emissions continuing to track
close to the worst-case scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). There will be a small downturn in
emissions because of the GFC, but anthropogenic emissions growth will
resume when the economy recovers unless the global effort to reduce
emissions from human activity is accelerated."

The
combination of soaring emissions and the lack of soaring temperatures
paints an intriguing puzzle for those in the climatology research
community with open minds. On the one hand, warming may be
occurring, albeit more subtly than many AGW advocates claim.
Under this scenario, a gradual upwards climb over many cycles may be
noticed, as global carbon increases. On the other hand, another
possibility is that almost no net warming will occur as carbon may
need to reach much higher levels before its effects truly kick in.
And a final possibility is that dramatic warming may indeed kick in
at sometime in the near future -- despite the fact that it hasn't
yet.

Either way, the overall picture leads suggests, for the
time being, that scientists question the IPCC's alarming estimates of
global temperature increases. While such increases can not be
ruled out, they do not seem to fit the current data, at least from a
macro (global) perspective.

With the international community
puzzling over expensive
climate change legislation, it is important to consider carefully
what landmarks by which to gauge "success" amid the
uncertainty of cyclic variation. Furthermore, critics and
proponents aside, the wisest approach seems to be to avoid schemes
that throw money into the wind, such as carbon
trading or carbon sequestration. Instead, if money from
global taxpayers must be spent, it seems much wiser to put it towards
projects that could eventually show financial returns and cut
emissions, such as fuel efficient cars, clean fission power, improved
solar cells, and viable fusion power.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I was watching the History Channel's series on how the earth went through changes to be where it is today. Turns out that our atmosphere was originally filled with CO2 and iron rich oceans. During the early animal life period temperatures were pretty high up, then once the continents formed one supercontinent this reduced the ocean currents which brought about an ice age (1st of many more to come). Then Volcanic activity and plate tectonics thawed out the planet and temperatures climbed back up, well beyond what we see today. During the last parts of the show it was noted that we are actually due for another massive drop in temperatures.

I won't mention any more because I encourage everyone interested in the planet's climate to watch the show (two parts... maybe an hour long each) and learn for themselves.

While I find shows like that educational, I don't take them as exact fact because there's no way to truly know exactly what happened. We do know at one point there was just one continent. But exactly how the planet came to be as it is today, we'll never know the whole truth. Just fairly good guesses. You're talking about something that happened several billion years ago.

They showed some new evidence that had come to light as well as the theory on what the atmosphere was like and seems pretty logical considering how chemical compounds interact with each. Plus the various life on the planet taking the shape to what the environment offered. the continents have an effect on ocean currents which has an effect on global climate.

I take these shows with a grain of salt but when the evidence and theories are there and seem logical it shouldn't be dismissed and should encourage further studies that these environuts seem to ignore.

interesting read. I don't believe in global warming as I feel The earth regulates itself as it has done for many many years, but many are getting rich scaring the h*ll out of people. Seems the best way to get bills passed, or take advantage of, or to get people to do what you want is to scare them.

Your absolutely right. This whole Global Warming thing has turned into a religious belief. You damn near get nailed to a stake if you even mention the slightest bit of doubt in the "Global Warming" doctrine. Or try and tell people the Polar Bears will be just fine without our help. Trust me don't bring up the polar bears! People freak out!

Its just another system of control, organized religion isn't doing it like it used to so they have to find something else to control the masses with. So between Terrorism and Global Warming I'd say they got it pretty well taken care of. Oh and lets not forget our good friend Mr. Swine Flu, but that's another topic itself ;)

Are you serious?! The last 30 years is a blink of an eye in the history of the Earth. The idea that we can accurately model the whether based on data compiled form the past 30, 100, even 1,000 years is absurd.

And for you grammar Nazis out there, I know you're supposed to spell out numbers less than 1,000, I just don't care.

For instance, criticizing AGW proponents for their focus on the 2002-2007 warming trend and then spending so much time focusing on 2008. A single outlier doesn't make or break any trend or theory, and in climatological terms, both ranges are far too short to be meaningful.

Similarly, there's the implied assertion that increased CO2 emission rates should immediately result in increased temperatures. That isn't necessarily true, and the fact that they didn't correlate could mean anything from CO2 emissions being a leading indicator of global temperatures, to the energy output of the sun being slightly less in 2008 due to the solar cycle, to CO2 just not being correlated to global temperatures at all. Personally I would think it's probably some of #1 (greenhouse gases don't act as such until they reach the upper atmosphere, and that takes some time) combined with a lot of #2 (I thought it was relatively well known that the sun has been quiet lately, in terms of sunspots, and that that reduces its total energy output slightly). In any case, if you're going to write an article about it, you shouldn't just assume that there should be an immediate correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperatures, without citing research to back the assumption up.

But yes, more time researching is exactly what's called for. This issue became politicized before a broad scientific consensus could be established, and as a result it's very hard to get any decent research done anymore. People on both sides would rather focus on trying to vindicate their personal positions and advance their own agendas, rather than trying to figure out what the big picture really is. We need the researchers to step back, follow the scientific method, and report their results in an impartial, unbiased way, without trying to spin it for either side of the political fence.

What I do know is that right now, here on the Southern coast of Australia, we are sweltering through summer-like 30C+ (85F+) temps for days on end, before the official start of our summer season in December, with annual rainfalls way down for the last decade or so.

quote: we are sweltering through summer-like 30C+ (85F+) temps for days on end, before the official start of our summer season in December

I remember the days when I could guess what "normal" weather was. Out here in SoCal, you can have 85 degree temps in the middle of January and it's not really abnormal. All it takes is a decent "Santa Ana" and there you go.

Its time for a balanced view on the problem. AGW may be true and it may be false. From a scientific standpoint, correlation does not equal causality. This statement means that studies showing correlations between CO2 and global temp don't prove AGW. This statement also means that studies showing correlations between solar activity and global temp don't disprove AGW. The fact is, we simply don't know what's going on. In such an uncertain scientific environment, snake oil salesmen capitalize on fear and thrive. That uncertainty doesn't mean that ignoring the problem is the best course, but it does mean that panicking about it will only make the salesmen rich at the expense of the rest of us.

Its time to find the common ground and move forward with more efficient and alternative energy plans. Whether you believe the best reason to do so is to save the earth, clean the air, save your money, or stop sending billions of dollars to terrorist organizations, the fact is that everyone benefits from more efficient use of energy and greater usage of renewable energy sources. Lets encourage more efficient cars and TVs as well as solar panels and geothermal plants without bankrupting every economy that makes/uses them. In a few decades, when the religious debates are over and science finally provides clearer answers, maybe we'll know what the "best" reason was. At least we'll know we did the right thing, regardless of the reason.

quote: Those conversations led Gore to politically inconvenient conclusions in this new book. In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies – published only last week – that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming.

Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions. “Over the years I have been among those who focused most of all on CO2, and I think that’s still justified,” he told the magazine. “But a comprehensive plan to solve the climate crisis has to widen the focus to encompass strategies for all” of the greenhouse culprits identified in the Nasa study.

I think that may be too high still. This guy says that if the atmosphere is a 10,000 seat stadium, CO2 would be 4 seats. 150 years ago it would have been 3. So that one part is causing this increase in temps? I'm no scientist, but dang how much effect can that have?http://medical-o2-oxygen-nitrogen.blogspot.com/200...

Maybe some one more qualified than me can rebut his (a geologist) argument.

You can take a pane of 1 cm glass, coat it with 100 nm of aluminum, and it will reflect almost all the incident radiation on anything behind it. The mirror is only 1/100,000th aluminum.

Using the Stefan Boltzmann law and applying it to a layered atmosphere, the impact of CO2 implied in AGW theory is very reasonable. The problem is that environmentalists not only exaggerate the impact that warming will have on the planet, but also the difference that a reduction in carbon emissions will make.

Unless you go for something cheap per kWh like nuclear energy, it's just a gross waste of money to slow down AGW.

It's the damned sun I tell you. I walked out this morning into nice 0 degree (Celsius, cause the rest of the world uses it!) and then that damned sun comes up and temperatures shoot up to 15 degrees by noon! In a mere 6 hours it rose 15 degrees! AT THIS RATE WE'LL BE AT 60 DEGREES AT THE 24 HOUR MARK. OUR BLOOD WILL FLASHBOIL AT THE 40 HOUR MARK.

Not necessarily aimed at you but for anyone with an answear, arent there other issues in mass increasing our release of CO2?

I havent had the time to study the information out there and usually only get what the media or the more "popular" papers write but since CO2 is looked upon as such a bad thing from so many directions, is it ALWAYS due to the idea that increase in CO2 means increase in temperature?

Isnt it CO2 that still are considered the reason for the acidic levels in the ocean to be rising?

Also, since co2 is , for example tasty tasty plant food, what other possible pro/cons are there for the increase in CO2?

Can anyone throw me in the direction of some unbiased and interesting sources, or 2 biased (but in each direction ;P) sources on the topics this may open up?

I just watched a movie that said the world was going to end in 3 years anyhow. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I enjoyed that movie, but it's just that, a movie. If you go by the bible thumpers the evidence is there, the world is on it's final days, & instead of the Great allknowing one above just waving his/her magic wand & curing all the world ills & meke everyone love everyone, he instead is just going to destroy it, to punish the many, or some believe this.

I live everyday like it's my last so smoke em if you got em, some here won't see 2012 anyways. Just the way life goes. Enjoy your days live each like it's your last cause it could be, everyday.

You are pathetic...you despite the fact that the cool trend these days is to be an atheist , and increasingly more and more folks are jumping on that bandwagon.... Some of us Christian folks still exist as amazing as it may seem -- many of us aren't the stupid naive or forceful people we are stereotyped into being.

I've never forced my believe in God on anyone (nor do I plan to), but I will defend it.

Now don't get me wrong -- I'm well aware of folks not believing what I do and I fully support the right of free will.....and its not the message you wrote that set me off to type this one, its the delivery in how you wrote it.

You wanna write "Well according to the bible the end days are here, if you believe that sort of thing..." or "Even though I think its crazy ....blah blah blah..." that's one thing but try to at least be respectful of somoene's believes a bit -- especially when there's no provocation. If I said atheists are "blah blah blah" explitives then you have earned the right to thrash me on my beliefs in defense.

There's plenty of things wrong with the world today....one of those items is the growing lack of respect or manners that one person shows to another.

We could go back say... 1000 years to the shores of Greenland where Viking farmers found it warm enough to farm the land along the shore. The planet cooled and they left, and it still hasn't gotten warm enough yet where anyone can farm that land. So we have a way to go before we pollute the earth as much as those pesky Vikings must have.

Btw: current CO2 levels: 0.0383%, Current Methane levels: 0.0001745%. On the other hand, Nitrogen makes up 78.084% of the atmosphere. Maybe we should start getting rid of that stuff!

Wow...I almost agree with Jason. Congrats Jason this is one of the least politically skewed posts yet! However I was with you until the end where you stated if taxpayer’s dollars must be spent...well that is the issue - they shouldn't be spent on this. We need to eliminate the artificial crap that government has imposed on the marketplace to accommodate special interests that allow us to break free and actually produce green technology that people will want to buy.

The other issue is nowhere on the planet has any Government imposed Green economy been successful - in fact they are dismal failures we should avoid that approach like the plague.

But let's dive into some of the real facts that few people want to discuss.

1) The CO2 absorption rate for the planet has remained consistent since 1850 - this is a major factor proving the IPCC's position is a fraud and politically motivated and has little to do with real science. Think about it...CO2 one of the 4 most abundant items in the entire universe...the liberals just couldn't resist such a target - they needed a way to justify taxing it.

2) There is similar and significant climate change happening on other planets in our solar system - last I knew there wasn't a lot of humans and cows out there creating massive amounts of CO2.

3) Take the IPCC's own numbers...they claim 7 degree increase in surface temperature during the next 100 years. The world produces 30 billion tons of CO2 per year currently (IPCC's numbers). To affect a 1 degree change in surface temperature we must STOP ALL CO2 production for the next 33 years. Yep the math is very straight-forward according to the IPCC it will take 1 trillion tons of CO2 to displace 1 degree of surface temperature. So you can clearly see that any climate legislation aimed at curbing CO2 emissions is a folly, it will NOT do anything. Think about no electricity, no cars, no planes, no boats, no trains, world-wide for the next 33 years just to change 1 degree.

4) The primary spokes model for AGW is Al Gore and he thinks the core of the earth is millions of degrees in temperature and that you only need to drill down 2 km's to reach a geothermal resource that can be turned into steam. Well let's think about that for a second - common grade school science tells us that the core of the earth is 5,000 degrees Celsius. The average temperature change in surface temperature at about 2km would be 50 degrees. Gee didn't Al Gore get a Nobel for his ability with AGW science.

5) Most importantly in the UK recently Al Gore actually admitted that the new analysis is indeed showing that CO2 might NOT actually be the primary culprit.

So the science is far from over and quite frankly even if IPCC were completely 100% correct in their alarmist position there is not much we really can do about it. The best chance for human survival is through adaptation and/or other world exploration and settlement - interestingly enough if we solve the living requirements on other planets we would most certainly end up with ground breaking technology to allow us to adapt to survive.

As far as spending taxpayer money, etc...we have already since to the tune of trillions of dollars of waste that the governments of the world are far too corrupted by special interests to make the right decisions for the good of mankind - it is a pipe dream however take our stimulus last year here in the USA...if the politicos were actually interested in making a difference we would have spent $1 trillion on building modern nuclear reactors alongside desalination plants all along the coastal areas of the USA. It would have made a huge dent in our power requirements and dependence on foreign sources, created 100's of thousands of permanent jobs and 90% of the country would have been on board.

All it takes is some common sense to solve these issues but the people in charge are politically blinded with re-election aspirations tied to the constant pandering to the special interests that keep them in office.

BTW Jason your point about schemes like carbon credits, etc...the biggest fraud it is up there with Catholic indulgences where you buy an indulgence from the Catholic Church so you would get forgiveness for a sin that you knew you were going to commit...AYE YI YI...

quote: The world produces 30 billion tons of CO2 per year currently (IPCC's numbers). To affect a 1 degree change in surface temperature we must STOP ALL CO2 production for the next 33 years.

Is that mankind's output or the amount of total CO2 going into the atmosphere each year? Even if we don't output a single ounce of CO2, there are still tens of billions of tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere each year.

I find it very interesting that have some of the brightest minds in the world working together and they can't even predict what our weather will be in 3 days yet we somehow think we can predict our weather 100 years from now.

I think we will find that CO2 is an important element in our climate trends but I don't think is the main culprit and certainly the EPA labeling CO2 as a pollutant is just bad science influenced by corrupt politicians.

They want to spend all this money and sap people's liberty all on the hype of something that cannot be fully determined yet we know with 100% certainty that an extinction event from an asteroid or super volcano will eventually happen again here on our planet and yet they spend almost nothing studying and learning how to do deal with that.

As the USA flies past $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities you have to wonder what is really going on here. Personally I think this is a deliberate attempt to destroy our free markets/capitalism and in the state of the ultimate financial emergency they plug in a socialist style answer which is just another form of enslavement.

Wait, isn't it a fact that CO2 trap heat?Isn't it a fact that we release CO2 into the atmosphere?So therefore there must be heating effect?Isn't it easy to measure atmospheric CO2 concentration?Surely the warming effect should be easy enough to calculate?

Even if CO2 was related to global warming, much of this comes from economic growth in India and China. Two countries who don't give a crap about their impact, only about what will help their economies grow. So anything we do will only harm our economy while they sit back and reap the benefits of businesses and industries escaping the taxation and caps placed on them in Europe and possibly here in the US (if Democrats get their wish).

aw yeah and the US has cared *so much* about the environment all along right? pfffft...

how nice it must be to load the earth full of carbon and plastic, then when another country joins the polluting fray all fingers point at them. just goes to show how poor the average person's reasoning abilities are :|

Yeah because things like emissions controls don't exist here. Also we didn't create the EPA, that was a European idea. Oh and recycling isn't a billion dollar industry in the US. Clean burning coal plants ? Pioneering nuclear power ? Alternative fuel mandates, nahh, not the US. Environmental groups are also shut down and silenced here, with totally no lobbying power, nope not here ! Hell we don't even have federal preserves, nope, we just bulldoze it all !

You are correct. Where I live in America most of leaves have fallen off the trees. And just before that they went from being green to various colors. I can't understand why Green Peace isn't all over this. Can't Bono come up with a song? It's CO2 for sure and maybe something else, like God who makes all things for his purpose.

quote: how nice it must be to load the earth full of carbon and plastic

And if you've got any plastic in the vicinity of where you live (including on that 'puter of yours), then you need to go sit down and chug a tall glass of SHUT UP.

U2 the caring environmental band tours around the globe losing millions on each concert because their carbon spewing stage set and support logistics are so enormous and costly.

Algore's 20-room mansion had a $30,000 (US) tab for gas and power usage in 2006 and Manbearpig The Global Walarmist Preacher flies around the globe in private jets and motorcades preaching his carbon footprint nonsense with a carbon footprint bigger than my freaking entire NEIGHBORHOOD.

I get so SICK and tired of holier than thou mindless carbon footprint hypocrisies from those who spew their Jim Jones-like mantra and support of draconian, economy murdering, and taxass raping politics and those who vote for and support such monstrosities of freedom rape.

Anyone catch the news that California is now ramrodding limits on big screen TV emissions now? If you ever want to know the future of what America will become under an Idiocracy, just look at California. That state motto needs to be renamed from "Eureka" to "Canary In A Coal Mine." They've already lost millions of jobs and due to outlandish taxes

I thought they were putting limits on the amount of power that TV's use. What's wrong with that? If people are too stupid to spend an extra $10 on a TV that saves them $20 per year in electricity then we should try to do something about it. What's your proposal?

1) Rather than repair/upgrade a power grid that regularly leads to rolling blackouts in the summertime, the solution is to limit choices for consumers. Not all consumers mind you, only those who are looking at <58" televisions. If you are someone who can afford a tv larger than that, oh well... buy what you want.

2) This effectively kills plasma sets as it is written. Some people prefer plasma over lcd. Too bad.

3) There are no equivalent proposals to limit the power draw of espresso machines, smoothie blenders, or tanning beds. Just a bit of interesting here: Highest draw on a large plasma is something on the order of 700 watts while a typical tanning bed can draw well in excess of 2000 watts.

So, to sum up: It addresses a symptom, not the problem. It limits choice, but only for the masses. It appears to be targeted at a certain part of the population. And it is likely to accomplish nothing as manufacturers can just find work-arounds. Over-regulation at its finest.

And just so you can't say I'm not offering an alternative, why don't they just require that televisions have the yellow "Energy Guide" stickers which show expected annual costs to run the television like they (Federal law) requires for most other household appliances? Then consumers can include energy use/cost considerations in their purchasing decisions.

I am mystified by the utter lack of economics training by our elected officials. Ever hear of the law of supply and demand? Is electricity becoming scarce? Then just raise the price. People aren't THAT stupid--they will suddenly remember to turn off lights and buy more-efficient TVs without needing a Nanny State to watch over them.

Or better yet, build another nuke. Nukes are or would be an excellent power source once the red tape is reduced. Thanks to "China Syndrome" and Jane Fonda for putting irrational fear into the hearts of the citizens decades ago.

they are also starting to seriously study the effects cosmic rays have on our weather through cloud seeding. when we have intense sessions of cosmic rays, more clouds form and the planet cools. when there is a drop in cosmic rays, less clouds and the planet warms.

CERN is also starting up a new program that is using an old particle accelerator to study this.

It is interesting that 2008 had one of the lowest solar outputs in this century in all respects, low sunspot activity, lower levels of UV, IR and visible light and lower solar winds, and then 2008 had a drop in global temperatures. Not enough data for a conclusion there but the coincidence is uncanny.

Another thing to think about on the temperature verses carbon issue is that as the oceans warm, they can not hold as much dissolved CO2, so the levels in the atmosphere are going to rise as global temperatures rise so it could be possible that the corralation is reversed and warming temperatures are causing the rise in CO2 levels which would mean the past warming period was a natural occurence causing the higher carbon levels. It can't be totally ruled out since the end of the little ice age was timed very close to the start of the industrial age. Another question to ask is what were the CO2 levels during the Medevial Warming Period and during the Dark Ages which was another time of lower global temperatures? Too bad we don't have accurate solar output measurments for those times to work the corralations.

I'm not really overly concerned with the idea of global warming, but the main issue with CO2 is the acidification of the oceans... the the killing off of coral reefs and other related issues. For this reason we do need to get CO2 under control.

I find it amusing that any of you think you know what weather is. Ya know - what it consists of, what contributes to weather, what makes weather weather.

No one knows how to predict tornadoes and yet you think some computer model can predict the weather 50 years from now? The sun is what drives our weather and yet you want me to ignore the sun as a contributing factor to weather? on top of that you have people that want you to buy carbon credits and "green" technology FROM the very people that OWN these businesses.

How does that not sound like a scam to you? If someone walks up to you and says "the earth will blow up in 2062 but if you give me 10 dollars a month you can save the world" would you not kick the bastard off your property?

It's amusing at a level not seen since the dark ages when the church "science" ruled the "world". The ignorance, manipulation, and fear mongering involved was incredible.

You can say all you want - weather getting cold, weather getting warm, weather is chaotic, god hates you - whatever; fact is you don't know.

Say it with me! "I don't know" - Don't sit there and pretend you understand what's going on with weather!

Here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.htmlCheck out the Frequently Asked Questions (extracted from chapters below) section.In fact, not only will you have your question answered but you'll find out why this article is misleading.

I wondered about this a couple of years ago, and when I learned more about the Little Ice Age, I wondered if we were just still warming after that. I did a bunch of searching, and found some pretty good sites. The best, but very hard to read sometimes unless you're very good with statistics is www.climateaudit.org . The host has been working on reconstructing the analyses of the IPCC and others and finding some major issues.

Another excellent site is www.wattsupwiththat.com , run by a meteorologist that originally wondered about the accuracy of all of the thermometers and weather stations in the US and around the world, and has surveyed most of the US sites used to monitor temperature. There are some major issues with a large number of sites (placement in parking lots, near air conditioners or BBQ grills, etc), as well as the urban heat island effect of making stations warm over time as expanding cities grow past what were rural stations.

Finally, I like to check out The Blackboard at rankexploits.com/musings where the host compares actual data against the IPCC model projections, and has found the projections to be false with >95% confidence.

As for solar activity, the late Theodor Landscheidt (sp?) has some very interesting work you can find with a google search or at www.john-daly.com that looks at solar cycles. He's made some predictions about El Nino/La Nina timing and strength over the years that proved accurate, and projected well into the future as well.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but all the sites you listed are not based on actual science. In fact, its obvious the authors do not have much of a grasp on climatology and chemistry. Anyone can call themselves a meteorologist. So by all means, find some random sites, written by people who are obviously not scientists, and make sure to avoid sites with actual science, like Nature and Science.

"Furthermore, critics and proponents aside, the wisest approach seems to be to avoid schemes that throw money into the wind, such as carbon trading or carbon sequestration. Instead, if money from global taxpayers must be spent, it seems much wiser to put it towards projects that could eventually show financial returns and cut emissions, such as fuel efficient cars, clean fission power, improved solar cells, and viable fusion power."

I may disagree with you time to time, but great conclusion and I agree 100%. The problem is that the current leadership is trying to force us to throw money in the wind with extremely expensive and dubious programs, and they are banning safe waste storage and cutting off funding on nuclear waste recycling.

Instead, if money from global taxpayers must be spent, it seems much wiser to put it towards projects that could eventually show financial returns and cut emissions, such as fuel efficient cars, clean fission power, improved solar cells, and viable fusion power.

Countless things affect the temperature of the planet, assuming that we can understand all of it is rediculous when meteorologists cant even 100% accurately predict what the weather will be like in a few hours. There is no reason to make sacrifices in our lives for the sake of guesswork.

Is polution bad? Sure. But linking it to global warming is like telling a child that if they sit too close to the TV they will go blind. No reasoning is given, its just a scare tactic, but children don't know any better so they listen.

That's right! I don't give a damn about what you give a damn about. Why would I want your personal beliefs, finances, opinions, and family ever become my problem? Oh, right, because you are deserving...

Nuclear fission electricity generation is already clean provided there is a safe place to store the waste materials, which are all solid and do not take up very much space (unlike carbon-capture technology with fossil-fuel plants which is generally unproven).

I wish our government here in Britain were more like the French and we considered nuclear power as our primary non-renewable energy source for the next few decades.

I don't see the logic of the last paragraph. I don't know much about economics, but I don't see the direct difference on the economy between adding a separate cost and reducing the margins of goods sold. That is to say, is innovation which meets an unnecessary demand really beneficial to the economy? It may be, if the knowledge gained when researching the innovation can be applied elsewhere, but, if so, then the same benefit could be argued just as well about carbon sequestration as compared with developing new types of power plants and cars.

Anyone interested in a comprehensive analysis of the natural causes of variations in our climate may want to read Ian Climer's "Heaven and Earth, global worming the missing science".the bottom line, is that it isn't CO2. Even the term greenhouse gas should be intellectually offensive to a thoughtful person, after all CO2 is absorbed in a greenhouse, not produced. Then there's the thermodynamics, but that's a question beyond the comprehension of the enviromaniacs.

On the fourth hand, Jason - it could simply be that anthropogenic CO2 just doesn't act in a way that affects global temperatures. Something is amiss, whatever it may be. It seems that we can safely begin to conclude that the IPCC's doomsday scenario is, at the very least, far from proven and scarcely plausible.

Global warming is a scam put on by the Leaders and Architects of the New World Order as a means to steal quadrillions of dollars and confuse the people of the world so they can secretly implement their global collectivist one world government.

Believe it or not, all the theories are correct, all of them! Theories like; Freemasonry, the Elders of Zion, the Christian End Times, and the Brave New World. The Leaders of the New World Order have capitalized on the human condition towards conflict to keep the scholars, scientists, and politicians (and otherwise reasonable men) arguing about who is right and what to do. Studies are released, just like this one, as tools by the New World Order to fuel the debate and muddle the issues. Just enough "truth" is made known to make is all seem logical and to assuage the curiosity of the common man. But it's all lies! It's all propaganda released by the Leaders of the New World Order intended to keep people busy and distract us from what it really being done to us and the world.

But why? And to what end, you may ask? One word; control. Control over every aspect of our lives. EVERY aspect. Man was born with free will, opposable thumbs, and an innate curiosity that makes us ask the question "Why". It is these things that has been the bane of tyrants and despots alike throughout history and it is these things that have stopped any one person from achieving total control. But the New World Order is more than one man, it is a Cooperation of those who believe that they are better off running the lives of Man than Man himself.

It's time to wake up, come together, and set aside petty differences and collectively look a The Man Behind The Curtain!

Global warming is a theory, not scientific fact, and it is slowly becoming a problem of demarcation...until enough evidence has been collected to unequivocally prove or disprove the theory of global warming, anything said to steer opinion towards or away from global warming is rhetoric and propaganda, and ultimately meaningless...

and you can vote to be counted IN or OUT of the great climate scam. It's a UK-based poll, set up by the London Science Museum on behalf of the UK's green-headed, monster of a government, but anyone can vote.

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The north pacific plastic garbage heap is approximately double the size of Texas. I believe this is acting a huge solar blanket heating the surrounding waters. This toxic stew represents a more serious problem then carbon. And the funny part is.. my theory is just as valid as anyone elses. If the nations of the world want to start fixing things on a smaller scale then start here!

1. This article purposely selects certain sets of data to create a nonexistent debate in the Scientific community.2. It's obvious the author does not understand the basics of climatology.3. It's always interesting to find people who think they know more about the topic of global warming than 95% of all scientists, you know the people who really do understand these things.4. Sea level is still rising.5. The Greenland Ice Sheet is melting faster every year. The rate almost doubled in 10 years, 24 km3 in 1996 to 46 km3 in 2005.6. Climate change must be taken in context. It is correct that climate has shifted many times throughout the Earth's history. It is not correct to assume that the rates of change are similar to that of today. In fact, today's rate of change is faster than anything seen in past records. There are exceptions, but these are easily observable including massive volcanic activity, changes in the Earth's obliquity, etc. None of these are happening today.7. CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a 100 year residence time.8. Early temperature calculations in the early 20th century were not correct because data was limited. Scientists have made corrections to these early results from a series of data sources (oxygen isotopes, carbon isotopes, global temperature readings, ice cores, etc.)There's a lot more, but I'll leave it here.

The article is quite devious in the way it tries to portray a rift in the scientific community just occurring and "new evidence" supporting the author's claim that "nothing is going on", that climate change is just a big coup to steal your precious money.

The way scientific articles are quoted to convey a message of scientific certainty, but the source conveniently omitted is a significant atrocity.

Let's get to it.

"New evidence suggests that the correlation between atmospheric carbon and warming may not be as clear as previously believed"

What exactly is the "new evidence" presented in this article? It is never spelled out clearly.

Maybe that 2008 was a colder year than 2007 (in some places on the planet)? That is a normal variation, not every year will be warmer than the previous. This is nothing new, it's clearly visible in the graph from previous years as well. The long term trend still points to increasing temperatures and the year 2008 does not change that trend in any way at all such like the author claims.

So according to the author some believe we may be wrecking the planet, while others think we are wrecking the economy.

Now which one is the more important argument?

Can the planet prosper without a "strong" economy?Can the economy be sustained without a healthy planet?

The argument is moot. If the climate continues to change (significant change has already occurred) the cost of climate change damages will be higher than the cost of preventing further climate change in the first place, both in economic terms and in terms of horrendous human suffering.

"A recent study looking at atmospheric carbon when combined with a recent summary of global atmospheric temperatures over the past 30 years sharply illustrates this uncertainty."

Which study, again the vital details of the study's name and it's scientific status is missing. Has it been peer reviewed? Or is it simply a "study" of the author of this article who likely lack the scientific knowledge to do any analysis of the images published at all?

"Meanwhile, turning to a new study in Nature Geoscience, in 2008"

Again the name of the article is conveniently missing. I guess the article likely accepts anthropogenic global warming and as such the author does not want readers to read the original source.

"global carbon levels soared 2 percent to record highs of 1.3 tons of carbon per capita per year"

The climate is a complex system, that's why you have to look at long term trends. Looking at 2008 and stating that all the other data we have of ocean temperatures rising, glaciers melting and the change in spring/autumn entrance dates, oceans getting ever more acidic, coral reefs dying of changes in temperature and acidity no longer able to support young fish leading to fish stocks collapsing etc. Somehow this wast amount of data that we have collected that points in the direction of a catastrophe is thrown out the window simply because of one "cold" year (note that 2008 is still a very warm year looking at a one hundred year trend).

Looking at a single year that suits your argument is known as "cherry picking". If we had quit looking at long term trends in 1998 and extrapolated temperatures from 1997 - 1998 the planet would have a been a dead one long before today. This "new evidence" is no evidence at all in the scientific meaning of the word evidence.

"On the one hand, warming may be occurring"

It is occurring, it's undisputed. Find a SINGLE peer reviewed article published in the last 5 years that concludes warming is not happening. Do try.

"On the other hand, another possibility is that almost no net warming will occur as carbon may need to reach much higher levels before its effects truly kick in."

What would "truly kick in" mean in your opinion? Converting all arable land to deserts perhaps? Let's not go there. We know warming is undesirable. Why should we push our luck? Why not try to stay at the current level? Why push that luck further to see what happens when the effects truly kicks our collective balls. Why? To "save our economy"? Oh please... Pull your heads out of the sand.

"Either way, the overall picture leads suggests, for the time being, that scientists question the IPCC's alarming estimates of global temperature increases."

The picture doesn't contain any information what so ever about an alleged change of climate scientist opinions.

Which scientist have changed their view? One anonymous one? No one? State names. I know of no one. NO ONE changed their view because of 2008.

"With the international community puzzling over expensive climate change legislation"

If significant climate change happen that will be extremely expensive to everyone and the consequences unfathomable.

Is it not logical to try to prevent that loss from manifesting? Why not punish that which contributes most to climate change to make citizens pick greener options?

I prefer to turn when a brick wall appears in front of me when I ride my bike to work. Apparently these days noone cares about science anymore. We would love to hit that wall, since we "save our economy" while hitting it. It doesn't matter if our grandchildren will never see wild animals or will both starve and lack clean water. Who cares anyway! We have a strong vital ever growing progressing fine economy! Hooray!

It's all about the opinions today. Everyone knows exactly what is going on, everyone is a climatologist.

This article contains no evidence what so ever in the way science talks about evidence. It is at best a creative piece of writing to appease those citizens who can not accept that the planet is not big enough for our ever increasing appetite for energy and consumer products and our ignorant dumping of waste where our food is grown. Not even horses do that.

You assume that a solar minimum means we get cooler. That is probably not the case.

The person who said "we don't know enough" is absolutely right. Its quite possible (even likely) that the quiet sun means less clouds (due to less ionizing radiation) and thus a lower planetary albedo and hence warming! When the sun gets going again, we might cool down, and the CO2 levels reduce due to cooling.

We don't know. Our models do not predict in the right direction, to say nothing of accurately. So cap and trade is just a way to make certain politicians rich.

Excuse me ... I thought we were commenting on an article that reported that increasing CO2 was not causing the expected level of warming.

As for the possibility that the "Maunder minimum" in solar activity caused the litlle ice age: yes, its possible. But try to find a reputable climatologist who is certain that is true. The wikipedia article you link to expresses many doubts as to cause and effect here. To repeat: we do not know enough. We need to learn more.

I do think its a stupid experiment to pour CO2 into the air without limit, but trying to change the temperature by reducing it is just as stupid.

And perhaps, if the reduced solar activity is pushing us into an ice age, we need more warmth...

AGW proponents like to dismiss solar activity as a major factor. Many solar scientists disagree. The climatological models have a hard time explaining the temperature swings of the MWP and LIA with the assumptions they have about solar forcing.

Recent theories about connection between solar activity affecting penetration of galactic cosmic rays to the lower troposphere and causing ionization leading to seeding of clouds suggest a positive feedback mechanism for solar forcing. Even CERN is now serious about testing this theory.

So in the last 30 years temperatures have risen 0.3 C. About 0.15 C of that corresponds with the average temperature rise since that has occured since we started recovering from the LIA. Another thing is recent CO2 measurements show a drop in the rate, so the curve trend is looking far less exponential. The amount of CO2 is significantly lower than that predicted by the IPCC models just 8 years ago. Extrapolating the current trends suggest perhaps CO2 increase by the year 2100 will be perhaps half of what the IPCC predicts. Lord Monckton has it right (scienceandpublicpolicy.org), the impact of AGW by 2100 looks to be no more than 1C. And all that extra CO2 is going to be wonderful for growing food and trees (a doubling of CO2 on average increases plant growth rates over 25%).

Agreed. I would bet on solar activity being one very large factor in climate change. Ive seen arguments in several directions about sunspot activity. But we need to know more. "Betting" is not a good basis for spending trillions reducing CO2.

It does seem likely that high sunspot activity causes warming. We had very active solar conditions (some of the largest flares ever recorded) about the time the chicken little brigade started telling us we were overheating the planet...